LGBT PC

Michael Kinsley devotes an entire column to the seemingly obvious idea that “Being against marriage equality doesn’t make you a monster.” The impetus is Ben Carson’s being pressured out of giving the commencement addresss at Johns Hopkins Medical School because of his opposition to gay marriage.

Carson may qualify as a homophobe by today’s standards. But then they don’t make homophobes like they used to. Carson denies hating gay people, while your classic homophobe revels in it. He has apologized publicly “if I offended anyone.” He supports civil unions that would include all or almost all of the legal rights of marriage. In other words, he has views on gay rights somewhat more progressive than those of the average Democratic senator ten years ago. But as a devout Seventh Day Adventist, he just won’t give up the word “marriage.”

[...]

The university’s response was wrong for a variety of reasons. First, Carson isn’t just another gasbag. He is director of pediatric neurosurgery at Hopkins. Pediatric neurosurgery! He fixes children’s brains. How terrible can a person be who does that for a living? Yes, I know the flaw in this thinking: There is no necessary connection. As a character says in Mel Brooks’s movie The Producers: “der Führer vas a terrific dancer.” But Carson didn’t murder millions of people. All he did was say on television that he opposes same-sex marriage—an idea that even its biggest current supporters had never even heard of a couple of decades ago. Does that automatically make you a homophobe and cast you into the outer darkness? It shouldn’t. But in some American subcultures—Hollywood, academia, Democratic politics—it apparently does. You may favor raising taxes on the rich, increasing support for the poor, nurturing the planet, and repealing Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act, but if you don’t support gay marriage, you’re out of the club.

That we’ve come this far is remarkable.

Thought experiment: If you were up for tenure at a top university, or up for a starring role in a big movie, or running for office in large swaths of the country, would it hurt your chances more to announce that you are gay or to announce that you’ve become head of an anti-gay organization? The answer seems obvious. So the good guys have won. Why do they now want to become the bad guys?

More remarkable? How fast we’ve done it.

The first known mention of gay marriage is an article (“Here Comes the Groom” by Andrew Sullivan) commissioned by me and published in this magazine in 1989. And I would bet that there is no one born before 1989, gay or straight, who didn’t, when he or she first heard the idea, go, whaaa? Many on reflection got used to the idea, and a majority of Americans now support it. The day will come, probably next Tuesday at the rate things are going, when previous opposition to the idea of same-sex marriage will seem bizarre and require explaining, like membership in the Ku Klux Klan in the youths of some old Southerners—are there any left?—on Capitol Hill. But we’re not quite there yet. At the moment, simply opposing gay marriage doesn’t make you a homophobe, any more than opposing affirmative action makes you a racist or opposition to settlements on the West Bank makes you an anti-Semite.

Indeed, at least publicly, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton opposed gay marriage until a few months ago. The idea would have seemed absurd to George McGovern, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis when they were running for president.

When Gallup first started polling on this question in 1996, 27 percent supported gay marriage against 68 percent opposing. Just three years ago, the pros were at 44 and the cons at 53.

Now, being against it gets a pediatric neurosurgeon written out of polite society.

To be clear, both Kinsley and I think Carson is wrong on this issue. Kinsley likely got there before I did and I’ve been there for several years. But I’m not going to condemn a 61-year-old black man as a bigot for only being at the civil unions stage of his evolution.

Incidentally, Carson holds the distinction of being the first surgeon to successfully separate conjoined twins joined at the back of the head. He did that in 1987, two years before Sullivan invented the notion of gay marriage. A fellow like that might have something interesting to say to a group of people about to embark on careers as physicians.

Comments

Ben Carson’s being pressured out of giving the commencement addresss at Johns Hopkins Medical School because of his opposition to gay marriage.

Except that is a massive simplification of what actually happend. Let’s look at what Carson said:

Carson compared gay marriage to bestiality and pedophilia in a recent Fox News appearance. “My thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman,” he said. “It’s a well-established, fundamental pillar of society, and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality — it doesn’t matter what they are — they don’t get to change the definition.”

It’s not as if Carson said, in a respectful manner, that he just does not hold with marriage equality. Then we could respect his right to disagree. His comments were hateful, plain and simple, and it’s a big negligent of you not to incude them in the post. Carson is no victim. It was Johns Hopkins students and facility that subsequently said they do not consider Carson to be fit for a leadership role at Hopkins. I am pretty sure they have the right to do that.

Is Carson a monster? No, but he is a raging bigot, as well as a fool for making those comments on national television. He does not get a pass because he is a highly skilled professional.

I was raised Seventh-day Adventist, but fortunately I have recovered. It’s hard to find a more whackily-fundamentalist denomination. I could produce a considerable wall of text about it, but I’ll spare everyone having to read it.

As to the issue raised in the post, I agree with @anjin-san. Had Carson simply expressed respectful disagreement with same-sex marriage, I’d disagree with him, but I wouldn’t think he should be barred from giving the commencement address. But it’s another, unforgivable, thing altogether to equate it with bestiality and child molestation, and given the content of Carson’s remarks, I think finding another speaker is appropriate.

As I’ve mentioned before, I’m disturbed by the argument that because your church endorses a particular view as correct, you are now absolved of all moral responsibility for endorsing it yourself. The Bible provides justification all kinds of horrible acts, from slavery to genocide. If someone said that “as a devout Christian, I just can’t give up the institution of slavery”, would we hesitate to call them a racist?

I suppose Kinsley is just trying to do his cute contrarian thing, and show his flair as a writer, but this kind of crap does real harm. If we are going to mock people, it ought to be the people who embraced the false ideas ….

You have a right to free speech. You don’t have a right to free speech without consequences. I’m not worried about Mr. Carson. For every commencement address he loses, he’ll get a speech for big bucks at some conservative confab.
As to whether he’s a bigot, I don’t know what’s in his heart , but he certainly SOUNDS bigoted. That’s enough for me. It’s a pity, because he is a great surgeon and otherwise a great role model.

The first known mention of gay marriage is an article (“Here Comes the Groom” by Andrew Sullivan) commissioned by me and published in this magazine in 1989.

And this is utter absolute bullsh!t. As Scott Lemieux explained so well at LG&M:

I…wow. I don’t mean to suggest that the Sullivan article wasn’t important in its way, or to deny Kinsley his appropriate share of the credit for publishing it. But “first known mention?” I don’t know what the very first was, but I do know that there were lawsuits claiming that bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional that made it to state appellate courts in Minnesota, Kentucky, and Washington between 1971 and 1974. Nor was the concept unknown in mainstream news sources during the 70s. It’s just remarkable that Kinsley wouldn’t bother to take a little time to check out this implausible, self-serving claim.

I think in this specific case we’ve had a bit of a narrative fail. Obviously the situation was not as initially presented, and as stonetools said, I can’t say for certain the guy’s a bigot but he’s doing a pretty good impression of one.

The larger issue is when does support for a formerly acceptable position becomes unacceptable? Are Romans who owned slaves in the centuries BC, and the Founders who owned slaves in the 18th century, and Southerners who owned slaves in the 19th century, all equally culpable morally?

My own not-very-well-thought-out approach is to apply a reasonable man standard. Should a reasonable man in the BC have known that slavery was morally wrong? Probably not. By the 18th century we already had a lot of voices making the case. By the 19th century people were busily suppressing the anti-slavery voices and definitely had a basis for reconsidering their earlier support for the institution.

So, I guess it’s a sliding scale that takes into account the society you’re in, and how much opportunity you’ve had to examine your position.

[T]hey don’t make homophobes like they used to. Carson denies hating gay people, while your classic homophobe revels in it.

He’s been watching far too many kids films and Norman Lear sitcoms from the 70’s. Most bigots don’t twirl their mustaches in polite society — at least not under their real names.

All of the homophobes and other bigots I’ve encountered, when publicly called on their statements, quickly state that “they don’t hate X” people. But the moment they are out of the spotlight or they think they’re “among friends,” all bets are off and the worst emerges.

Frankly, I have a lot more respect for the “out” haters versus the legions that remain in the closet (or hiding behind the anonymity of the internet).

That doesn’t mean Carson’s one of these folks. I’m all for taking him at his word. Though as @anjin-san points out, immediately loping “the gays” in with NAMBLA and bestiality, and following it up with a non-apology-apology tends to undercut some of that claim.

But, beyond all that, why should any individuals beliefs about a certain thing completely invalidate the totality of their work. Carson is still a brilliant surgeon, in the same way that Woody Allen and Roman Polanski are insightful artists. However, with the possible exception of Allen, I don’t know how much time I’d personally want to spend around any of them.

@superdestroyer: This isn’t about “one slip-up.” There’s a big difference between respectful disagreement on a position, and equating those with whom you disagree with pedophiles. The latter indicates a bigotry that SHOULD be unacceptable in modern America.

But as a devout Seventh Day Adventist, he just won’t give up the word “marriage.”

And so the F what. Hey Ben, it is NOT your word. It belongs to all of us. As a devout Seventh Day Adventist, you are free to NOT marry anyone you don’t want to. We are trying to run a country here, not a church.

You just reinformce the “one slip-up” and your done idea. If a conservatives has to be concious of how liberals will react to everything they say, then you are agreeing that liberals are the dominant political force in the U.S. and can ruin whoever they want.

The message is very clear that people should agree with whatever liberals want and they should do it immediately. Every other position to lead to a ruined career, a destroyed personal life, or an end to a political career.

Politics is going to become very boring is no disagreements are allowed and there is no diversity of viewpoint.

@superdestroyer: You’re still missing the point. The issue isn’t what one says, it’s how what one says reveals one’s inner thinking.

I support same-sex marriage, and I know people who don’t. But none of them have equated me with a member of NAMBLA or insinuated I screw sheep. Carson did both. That’s not a mere disagreement or “diversity of viewpoint,” it’s an indicator of deeper views that demean and smear.

My patience with you is pretty limited, but I will try and explain this in a way that even you can understand.

If a conservatives has to be concious of how liberals will react to everything they say,

Stop crying, and join the real world. Everyone has to be concious of how EVERYONE will react to anything they say.

If I go on a hate speech rant about pretty much anything on my Facebook page, it will harm my career. I work with a lot of high profile people, they are not going to want a loose cannon around them. It has nothing to do with liberal or conservative, it does have something to do with character, judgement, and the ability to comport ones self in an appropriate manner in a public setting.

Carson probably thought that because a lot of right wing pundits regularly engage in hate speech, that it was fine to do so himself on Fox. He did not think it through and realize that for Ann Coulter, right wing rage merchant, hate speech is a product that roughly 27% of the population is willing to pay for. Ben Carson, the brilliant surgeon, and director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital, is held to a somewhat higher standard.

Carson probably thought that because a lot of right wing pundits regularly engage in hate speech, that it was fine to do so himself on Fox. He did not think it through and realize that for Ann Coulter, right wing rage merchant, hate speech is a product that roughly 27% of the population is willing to pay for.

Which reminds me of a quote attributed to Rush Limbaugh, which goes something like:

The fastest way to make a million in the US is to get half of the population to love you while getting the other half to hate you.

Anjin nails part of the problem Carson is having. Regardless of whether it was intentional or not, he decided to frame his opinions in the style of a Right Wing media pundit. The problem is that he doesn’t make his career currently in that fashion. And the net result is he’s reaping a whirlwind.

Those whacky PC college kids, upset because their prospective commencement speaker compared gay marriage to bestiality? They should be more respectful of asinine conservative viewpoints and false analogies.

Kinsley had ridden the contrarian train as far as it will take him, which is a lot further than he ever should have gone. He is a good writer, but he’s a lousy thinker and reading him doesn’t make anyone more knowledgeable. If you’re looking for a thoughtful, informed article, skip him.

Where did I say that he had been ruined. However, the message is very clear. Just wait a few months when there will be an anti-Ender’s Game movie push by homosexuals due to things that Orson Scott Card has said in the past.

The message is very clear and anyone who wants a career or to be in politics had better not only support gay marriage but do it with enthusiasm or suffer the consequences.

@superdestroyer: “Just wait a few months when there will be an anti-Ender’s Game movie push by homosexuals due to things that Orson Scott Card has said in the past. ”

Oh, noes! Someone might say not to see a science fiction movie! It’s the end of democracy. Completely unlike when right wingers urge viewers to boycott, say, Sean Penn movies. Or send out thugs to vandalize theaters showing The Last Temptation of Christ. That was just good citizenship. This is completely unprecendented in American history.

@superdestroyer: Politics is going to become very boring is no disagreements are allowed and there is no diversity of viewpoint if people aren’t allowed to point and say, “Look at the idiot.” because to do otherwise would be thought of as suppressing political discourse.

The message is very clear and anyone who wants a career or to be in politics had better not only support gay marriage but do it with enthusiasm or suffer the consequences.

Nonsense, there are many states across the country (where Republicans have a governing majority) and where many people believe that gay marriage and bestiality are analogous. My guess is that there are no consequences to be suffered for harboring those retrograde beliefs.

Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And, you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that, I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman.

That was Carrie Prejean’s answer when asked if she supported same sex marriage. She could not have been more conciliatory toward SSM while maintaining her belief in traditional marriage. She didn’t compare it to NAMBLA or bestiality. Did the left respect her right to disagree? No, they ridiculed her, called her answer “hate speech,” called her a bigot and a homophobe.

“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that…we know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”

That was Chick Fil A executive Dan Cathy’s comment that ignited the firestorm last year. Did the left respect his right to disagree? No, he was the target of boycotts and had Democratic mayors of major American cities state publicly that his restaurants weren’t welcome because of his views.

Face it, the left doesn’t accept differing views on SSM and the left certainly doesn’t respect anyone who disagrees. This argument that Carson’s real problem was the comparison to NAMBLA and bestiality is nonsense.

Face it, the left doesn’t accept differing views on SSM and the left certainly doesn’t respect anyone who disagrees.

Well looky here:

“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit.

I repeat, her bible, not mine. My bible says heterosexual marriage is an abomination. Now who is it who does not respect “anyone who disagrees.” ? What makes her “Bible” more acceptable than mine?

Do you get my point? We have religious freedom in this country. My religion (or lack there of) is every bit as valid as anyone else’s. I don’t get to push my religious values on any one else. Guess what? The same goes for them.

Don’t believe in gay marriage? Don’t marry a gay man (or woman). This is not hard.

And just to clarify, nobody, I repeat, NOBODY is saying any church has to accept gay marriage here. We are talking about government. And if you can not separate the 2, I suggest rereading the 1st Amendment and all relevant SC opinions

That was Chick Fil A executive Dan Cathy’s comment that ignited the firestorm last year. Did the left respect his right to disagree?

Hell, if it was just disagreement, that would be one thing. But the right doesn’t just disagree with gay marriage; they seek to ban the practice. Maybe Prejean and Chick-Fil-A wouldn’t find such a hostile response to their opinions if they were content to hold them privately rather than seek to enshrine them in the law.

@OzarkHillbilly: Wow. This is the most partisan thing I have said here. NOT the most relevant…. and yet? it is the first to reach yellow card status. Guys??? I am as partisan as the next guy, but a dozen down votes on my less partisan but more relevant posts would mean a hell of a lot more than this sh!t.

Stop scoring me on a left – right scale. Try a wrong – correct scale. The truth awaits.

But I’m not going to condemn a 61-year-old black man as a bigot for only being at the civil unions stage of his evolution.

I haven’t read the comments yet so forgive me if others have already jumped all over this straw man.

Ben Carson is a renowned surgeon with political aspirations and a recently obtained political platform. He used that platform to express opposition to the very same civil rights that his own state has granted to his fellow residents. It is not necessary to find him to be a bigot in order to conclude that his values are not consistent with the values the school and the state are trying to instil in its students and residents.

I suspect he harbors no ill will toward individual LGBTs, but he still does not want them to have the same marriage rights as others. That’s wrong and the students shouldn’t have to accept him as a speaker merely because he wouldn’t be too far behind Obama if he were to change his opinion today.

@Stormy Dragon: Agreed. Show me the person who lives by the Bible, and I will respect to the ends of the Earth their objection to gay marriage. Alas, what we mostly get is folks dipping their selective quill into Leviticus so they can get their hate on.

Most of the bigots I know are nice in person. And many, in general, make exceptions for “well spoken” members of the groups they otherwise cut down.

All that said, I have a respect for Card in so much as he’s willing to own what he’s said. While I might disagree with him, it puts him light years ahead of all of the people who are only willing to spew under a pseudonym.

All the government will have to do in the future is attack the tax exempt status of any church that does not support homosexual marriage. The Democrats have a clear path ahead. Look at how they will use disparate impact lawsuits in the future to attack everyone on the right.

Sarak Palin and Mitt Romney come to mind, right? Remember how critical liberals were of those two? Sure it the criticism was in the context of a political campaign, but dammit, to ruin their lives – that’s going too far!

Carson may be a good surgeon, but he is a terrible public speaker. He uses demagoguery and he is fond of clichés when he talks about politics, regardless of his bigotry toward Homosexuals. I would not want someone like that to be a commencement speaker.

I do indeed know a bit about movie deals. I have one with Sony Pictures and Sam Raimi, though God knows if anything will ever come of it. (And I’ve done a whole lot of meetings around asecond possible deal, and now my wife has one.) And yeah, the option money is not life-changing. The “purchase” money is better — that comes if the deal gets the green light. And back end money is notoriously hard to collect on, but not always impossible since we now have ways around some of the studio accounting lies. (Using Variety’s numbers for example.)

As for transmedia, well, my TM project was an enormous waste of money. So were those of a couple other authors. I think we’re all pretty leery of the whole concept now and I know the publishers are. I’m still very interested in enhanced e-books as distinct from transmedia, but so-called transmedia looks like b.s. at least insofar as it relates to books. It’s the single biggest mistake I’ve made in 23 years in publishing. It cost my publisher and it cost me. The only consolation is that I wasn’t alone in it, smarter guys than me also crashed and burned.

Tossing aside Carson for a second because he’s a jerk testing out the political waters to generate book sales–its utterly unbelievable that anyone for gay marriage would give anyone against it a free pass and simply agree to disagree— as long as they did so respectfully and not appeal to any religious dogma as their justification. ANYONE against gay marriage will get the standard homophobe, bigot label. There isn’t a case of that NOT happening in YEARS. Gay Marriage has become what Abortion is to the right–you’re either in balls deep or you can’t get in the dance. Today…the left loonies are on the “right” side. Eventually, they won’t be (for some other issues they’re passionate about) and will hollow out the party the same way the right loonies have done. The human capital you need to actually get things done (folks that understand context and how to apply principles to complex systems by leveraging strategic tradeoffs) will go elsewhere. That’s why the Republicans currently can’t govern–those people are either gone or have been put in the corner by the crazies.

I also fail to see the relevance in whether someone gets their views from the Bible or not. If one can impeach the whole of a book based on disagreements with parts–what credence can be given to any document? The constitution was written by men who believed in Aristocracy and white superiority–does that mean we roll our eyes at anyone that derives their views from the constitution? If one obtains ideas from personal experience, which is biased and anecdotal as well—is that experience invalid because one is a tax cheat (or worse)?

Frankly, its ridiculous to judge the Bible and the Constitution by current norms and values–especially by people who have more time posting on Facebook than they have in serious scholarship devoted to either of these works. In 300 and 3000 years, people will look at relics from our culture in horror at certain things we consider “normal”. Does that impeach every contribution this culture is making? I think not. Discerning people in the future will pick out what’s of value and leave the rest. We should do the same for ancient works. Most religious works have value and derivative principles–if read by people that know the context and culture in which they were written. If an ignorant person comes to the wrong conclusion based on their understanding of those works…its pretty easy to challenge those views directly…instead of challenging it because of where it came from. Its pretty hard for people to make the case that they respect opposing points of view if they engage in that.

The Democrats and strategist like David Axelrod are far ahead of you when you argue”

The human capital you need to actually get things done (folks that understand context and how to apply principles to complex systems by leveraging strategic tradeoffs) will go elsewhere.

What the left will do in the future is professionally and personally destroy anyone who tries to oppose them. There is no need for tradeoffs, negotiations, or the settling of differences when it is easier and quicker to just destroy the people who have a different point of view. Look at how the left has destroyed a number of academics who did not mouth the PC mantra.

The message that the left is sending in the homosexual marriage argue is that anyone who does not support it with enthusiastically and immediately will suffer personally and professionally in the long run.

people in the future will pick out what’s of value and leave the rest. We should do the same for ancient works. Most religious works have value and derivative principles–if read by people that know the context and culture in which they were written

The problem is that the very foundation of religion is a concept of faith without logic or reason. This means that you have to take the whole thing as gospel (ahem).

When you introduce critical thought to a situation, you then must also consider the source (including author’s bias) of a piece of information. A book (or more properly collection of books) like the bible ends up losing much of its credibility with fairy tales of people living inside a fish, babies born of virgins, an unexplained and mysterious hatred of bacon & polyester, and explicit endorsements of slavery, genocide and bigotry (as is the case with this story).

When religious people pick and choose what to believe from their religious texts, based primarily upon modern tastes, I always wonder how their infallible God could have made a mistake on some of it – and how they can tell upon which part their deity made the error? The 10 commandments are right next to Leviticus’ warnings about cloven hooves – right?

ANYONE against gay marriage will get the standard homophobe, bigot label. There isn’t a case of that NOT happening in YEARS. Gay Marriage has become what Abortion is to the right–you’re either in balls deep or you can’t get in the dance. Today…the left loonies are on the “right” side.

Would disagree with this. Many on left would respect a ” for civil unions, against SSM ” position. Heck, that was the consensus liberal position five years ago. What liberals would object to is comparing homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality. THAT crosses over into bigotry. That’s where the line is.

That’s a very particular worldview, reacting as you have said to a certain kind of American fundamentalism. Someone raised by agnostic Jews, or agnostic Buddhists, might have a very different experience.

Many people seek and benefit from religious experience.

At the same time it is sad that so many of the world’s problems result from this “Dad’s religion or the highway” pattern. Dad’s God or no god.

@Tony W:“The problem is that the very foundation of religion is a concept of faith without logic or reason. This means that you have to take the whole thing as gospel (ahem).”

Actually that’s not the foundation of the Judeo-Christian religions. The Old Testament is clear that no one is to take the word of anyone claiming to be speaking the “Word of God” unless said person can demonstrate their authority to speak on behalf of “God” by performing a miracle. Other places in the New Testament exhort Christians to “test all claims” (paraphrase). The whole faith and faith alone strawman you set up is parroted by narcissistic non-believers to paint believers as gullible dopes AND by religious hucksters who want pews full of yes people to stroke their ego and self-importance–oh and to keep the collection plate full.

The 10 commandments are right next to Leviticus’ warnings about cloven hooves – right?

Actually they aren’t–and even if they were it wouldn’t matter. The bible is a collection of writings written to different people over the course of a millennium. It’s existed as a single book for only around 1800 years. This means there are no hard and fast rules for interpretation that can be applied across the entire “book”. Leviticus was written for the national priesthood–therefore members of that group would have understood what was meant by cloven hooves, mixed fabrics, etc. So if it makes you feel good to attempt to make Christian people look silly using high school debate tactics–have at it. Just understand that your own conclusions aren’t on the solid ground you believe they are. I don’t and have never read the Quran—so I don’t go around speaking about what Muslims believe and trying to make them look stupid from the writings in their book. Being ignorant yourself when speaking to ignorant people is…(guess). Something that has no value to me may have value to someone else and I can respect that–its called being a good neighbor.

@Stonetools: I would like to believe this but can’t because I’ve seen too many times were people saying civil union were acceptable have been compared with people that accepted the separate but equal doctrine. Most of the people I know that are really hard Christian fundamentalist would (now) accept civil unions as a way to save the word “marriage” for heterosexual unions. However, many gay marriage advocates do not want separate distinctions and see civil unions as still unequal even if functionally the would work exactly the same as a “marriage”. I think they have a fair point. If its the same, why shouldn’t we call it such? If I were king for a day–i’d make everything a civil union. If you’re a religious person that also wants to get “married” in the eyes of God–do so through a church and get the nice certificate signed by your pastor and clergy. Kind of like what happens with Baptisms…

@SuperDestroyer: Dude where do you get the stuff for your comments from? Its comedic gold! Who has the “left” destroyed? And if they are so powerful, why can’t they destroy Limpballs, Hannity, or Beck (or any other rightwing powerplayer)?

You may want to ask Chik-fila. You may want to ask Angela McCaskill. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/19/gallaudet-angela-mccaskill_n_1985878.html You can also look up the mormons in California who donated in “No on 8″ and then were personally attacked for it.
.
Anyone in military, in the civil service, in academia or who owns a business has to be aware that anything they say that does not wholeheartedly support the standard position of homosexual activists will risk their careers. That is the future of the U.S. The left no longer needs to try to convince anyone that their positions are correct and beneficial. All the left needs to do in the future is personally destroy anyone who gets in their way.

The moderates and liberals who have supported civil unions in past should be worried because they will be criticized for it in the future. Since they were not enthusiastic enough in giving the homosexual activist what they wanted, they will probably suffer in the future.

Anyone in military, in the civil service, in academia or who owns a business has to be aware that anything they say that does not wholeheartedly support the standard position of homosexual activists will risk their careers.

This is just straight-up bullshit. People aren’t being called out for generic opposition to gay marriage, they’re being called out for equating gay marriage to molesting little boys and buggering sheep. That is vital context, which you are either missing or dropping.

The moderates and liberals who have supported civil unions in past should be worried because they will be criticized for it in the future. Since they were not enthusiastic enough in giving the homosexual activist what they wanted, they will probably suffer in the future.

Supporting civil unions and not SSM used to be my position. I feel confident that liberals won’t attack me because I once held that position. Indeed, I am confident that they wouldn’t have attacked me if I continued to maintain that position. They would disagree with me, but they would not expel me from the liberal camp, or whatever action you would imagine liberals taking.

Maybe you need to hang out with some actual liberals, not the ones talking in your head.

O’Malley, a Democrat, has said McCaskill should be reinstated, as has the pro-gay-marriage group Marylanders for Marriage Equality. They say that whatever McCaskill’s personal opinion is on the issue, she should be allowed to exercise her rights as a citizen and sign a petition.

When I was a student at law school I did an internship with the Government department of the Mass. AG’s office – this is while they were defending the Goodrich case. They decided that they would make the most vigorous defense of the law without ever casting any aspersions against gay people or their relationships, making unsubstantiated claims about children being harmed or institutions being ruined, or otherwise engaging in the inflammatory rhetoric that seems to invariably be used when conservatives engage on the issue.

Theirs was a purely legal argument, and it was a very good one. Anyone wanting to see what an honest argument against gay marriage looks like should start there. Of course, the amici briefs were a fairly ridiculous collection of nonsense and bias posing as received wisdom. They rather made the appellants case for them, demonstrating that if it were not for bigotry we would have had gay marriage for a hundred years already.

This is all public record for anyone interested to read up on it. GLAAD used to have it all on their website, maybe they still do.

Did cities like Chicago go after Chik-fil-a because the President of the company equated homosexuality with bestiality? Did homosexuals go after Mormons in California because they equated homosexuality with sex with minors?

No, they were attacked becasue the opposed with the homosexual activist wanted.

That was just political ass covering after the controversy broke. What happens in a few years when there is no one left on the right who is willing to risk their professional or personal lives to protest?

He’s been watching far too many kids films and Norman Lear sitcoms from the 70′s. Most bigots don’t twirl their mustaches in polite society — at least not under their real names.

All of the homophobes and other bigots I’ve encountered, when publicly called on their statements, quickly state that “they don’t hate X” people. But the moment they are out of the spotlight or they think they’re “among friends,” all bets are off and the worst emerges.

It reminds me of a bit the late Patrice O’Neal said (paraphrasing): For white people, racism’s like bigfoot. They’ve all heard about it, but they’ve never actually seen it.

@superdestroyer: People went against Chik-fil-a because they did not want to buy products thereby generating a profit to contribute to their oppression. And because they and their allies have a lot of political power they were able to block businesses from opening.

As for the Mormons, they lied about what they were doing and tried to hide their attempts to game the political system. People held them accountable for this, and now they appear to be reconsidering their position and are no longer using the money they shake down from the laity to support a political program of bigotry.

@Superdestroyer: Chick-fil-a is a very bad example to use prove your point. They actually MADE piles of money when people that agree with the CEO, Sam Cathy, decided to support him. Can the left come after me??? I’d beg them to! Stores were out of chicken by dinner rush. It sounds like you are conflating “ruining” someone with challenging someones point of view. Nobody is beyond being challenged. Sam Cathy had a point-of-view…others disagreed and tried to use entirely ethical means (boycotts) to get him to alter his behavior (stop supporting anti-gay marriage orgs). I don’t have an issue with that. Cathy won the battle…but will assuredly lose the war.

I forgot to address it in my previous posts but associating homosexuality with pedophilia/bestiality…a common right wing tactic… is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard. Which is why Carson, a supposed smart man, has whatever flaming he gets coming to him.

Chick-fil-A Inc., the Atlanta-based fast-food chain feuding with gay-rights advocates over some executives’ stance on marriage, has served up two hidden billionaires. The two sons of Samuel Truett Cathy, the chicken sandwich empire’s founder — Dan Cathy, 59, and Donald Cathy, who is known as Bubba — have joined the ranks of the world’s richest, according to a report published today by PrivCo, a New York- based research firm that specializes in private companies’ financial data.

The report values Chick-fil-A at $4.5 billion….Chick-fil-A generated $492 million in earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization on revenue of $1.12 billion in 2011, PrivCo said. It added that the company’s 44 percent Ebitda margin was “virtually unheard of in the restaurant industry.” The chain has the biggest sales per unit in fast-food, according to QSR Magazine. In 2011, the company generated gross sales of $2.9 million per location, outpacing the average unit sales of runner-up McDonald’s Corp. (MCD) by $400,000, the magazine said in its August 2012 issue.

@superdestroyer: People “went after” Chik-fil-A because the company donated money to groups that DO equate same-sex marriage with bestiality. Since SCOTUS has ruled such donations legally equivalent to speech, Chik-fil-A was essentially saying that too.

Thanks for confirming it is all about raw poltical power. Either the management of Chik-Fil-A become enthusiastic supporters of homosexual marriage or homosexual activist will oppose every building permit, every franchise on a college campus, or every franchise As in a few years, if the management of Chik-Fil-A does not support separate and unequal rights for homosexuals,

The message that organized homosexuals are sending is very clear: give them whatever they want or suffer.

I guess losing franchises and having to spend money of lawyers to defend what they currently have is a liberal definition of “no harm.” And the only thing that was said about mormons is that they were attacked because they complied with campaign finance laws and handed the information to their opponents who could then personally attack them. That is the future of politics in the U.S.

You should have also mentioned that they pay their employees better than most fast food restaurants. Of course, being profitable, successful, and good for their employees does not mean a thing is anyone associated with the company does not support homosexual marriage. That is what the future hold for the U.S. As company can be poorly run and hard on its employees but if it takes the PC stance on homosexuals, abortion, and other social policy issues, the left will love the company.

So what have we learned. We’ve learned that the examples of martyrdom advanced by SD have not been “destroyed” by pro-gay rights persecution. They may have been criticized, boycotted, denied a speaking opportunity, temporarily suspended on the job-but that’s about it. They haven’t faced one hundredth of the persecution that gays have faced historically and still face today. Let’s not forget that gays CANNOT marry in 38 out of 50 states and face various disabilities still under DOMA. Let’s not also forget that its still legal to discriminate against gays in employment in many jurisdictions. Finally, anti-gay violence hasn’t gone away. So spare me the outrage for victims of “pro-gay” persecution.

Also too, according to SD, pro-gay advocates present a monolithic front aimed at crushing dissent among liberals on SSM and attacking those non-liberals opposed to SSM. But his own link shows that pro-gay right groups and politicians support the rights of others to oppose and to advocate against SSM.

I guess losing franchises and having to spend money of lawyers to defend what they currently have is a liberal definition of “no harm.”

Chick-fil-A lost franchises? No. The single documented instance of this was the cancellation of a Chick-fil-A restaurant on the campus of Northeastern University. Statements from politicians in Chicago and Boston didn’t result in the denial of anything. (And just so you know, I disagreed vehemently with those statements–people should be free to patronize or not patronize a business, but government should not be allowed to deny otherwise lawful businesses based on the politics of the owners. And if you look at what all the prominent supporters of gay marriage wrote at the time, you see they hold the same position.)

And, as others have pointed out, there was nothing–NOTHING–done to Chick-fil-A or the Mormon church that even remotely approaches the level of unfair discrimination, abuse, and outright violence perpetrated against gays in America every day.

You’re basically whining about a bunch of crap that never happened. Meanwhile, real harm is coming to real people because of you and those who think like you. And you want us to believe you’re the one being wronged? Spare me.

Either the management of Chik-Fil-A become enthusiastic supporters of homosexual

Chick Fil-A should not be worried with homosexual marriage, either pro or against. They should be worried about selling good food. Their food would taster better if their management wasn´t so worried with social and religious issues, it´s no wonder that their food is crap.

I love how homosexuals have translated “employment at will” to mean that discrimination against homosexuals is legal. Of course, when they make this argument, what homosexuals are really saying is that they want to use the government to hammer any business that does not vigorously and enthusiastically support their causes.

What homosexuals will never admit is that they own many businesses and organizations that hire only homosexuals and openly discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or gender. But of course, no one cares or will care in the future.

But how much did Chik-Fil-A have to spend to keep their franchises on other campuses. How much did they have to spend in Chicago to maintain what they already have. How much will they have to spend in the future to maintain what they currently have.

It is hard to argue that homosexuals have really been harmed by discrimination when they are the most affluent, educated, and politically connected group in the country. What so many businesses and industries are dominated by homosexuals when they only comprise a few percent of the population clearly demonstrates that there is little is any real discrimination.

I suspect that business and organizations control by homosexuals discriminated at a much higher rate against non-homosexuals that homosexuals are ever discriminated against.

VERENA DOBNIK MAY 20, 2013, 7:00 AM
NEW YORK (AP) — The man who police say hurled homophobic slurs at a gay man on a Manhattan street before firing a single fatal shot to his head appeared in court Sunday to face a charge of murder as a hate crime.

@G.A.Phillips: You mean God’s justification for drowning THE ENTIRETY OF HUMANITY (save a few of his chosen) isn’t in the Bible?

Oh, wait…from the book of Genesis:

6:6 The Lord regretted that he had made humankind on the earth, and he was highly offended. 6:7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe humankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth – everything from humankind to animals, including creatures that move on the ground and birds of the air, for I regret that I have made them.”

Slavery, hmm…From the book of Colossians:

4:1 Masters, treat your slaves with justice and fairness, because you know that you also have a master in heaven.

From Titus:

2:9 Slaves are to be subject to their own masters in everything, 13 to do what is wanted and not talk back, 2:10 not pilfering, but showing all good faith, in order to bring credit to the teaching of God our Savior in everything.

Ephesians:

6:5 Slaves, obey your human masters 10 with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart as to Christ